Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Which Candidates’ Super PACs Are Getting Most Corporate Money?
Daniel Nasaw
In addition to besting its rivals in total corporate donations, Right to Rise USA, founded by Mr. Bush’s supporters in January, received a far greater number of corporate contributions: 498 separate donations in the first half of 2015, Federal Election Commission records show.
Conservative Solutions received 24; America leads, 39; and Unintimidated PAC, 34.
Corporate contributions constitute a small percentage of overall contributions to the Republican super PACs. In the case of Right to Rise USA, corporate donations were about 16% of the $103 million the group raised in the first half of the year.
Bloomberg: Another Way to Mask Super Rich Donors
Zachary Mider
The next day, Nash’s spokesman, Robert Barletta, confirms that Nash was behind the $250,000 donation. In an e-mail, Barletta calls the donation “transparent and fully within federal campaign finance laws” and motivated by Cruz’s support for Israel.
When the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 to end a ban on corporate spending to influence elections, detractors envisioned an era when huge companies like Wal-Mart Stores or ExxonMobil would dominate politics in pursuit of profits. The reality is proving far different. Most business donations are coming from little-known LLCs whose founders and officers often don’t have to be disclosed anywhere.
MSNBC: End Citizens United PAC wants to make its name a reality
Aliyah Frumin
the group is on track to rake in a total of $25 million to $30 million for the entire entire cycle, said communications director Richard Carbo.
The group’s ultimate goal is to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which in 2010 gave rise to super PACs and unleashed a tidal wave of dark money into politics. So far, more than 325,000 people have signed End Citizens United’s petition demanding Congress pass such legislation. That number is likely to receive a boost, as the group has partnered with “Ready for Hillary” and will rent out its email list — which includes upwards of 4 million people — to reach out to potential liberal supporters.
FEC
CPI: Federal Election Commission refuses to release computer security study
Dave Levinthal
The report — known within the FEC as the “NIST study” — also provides recommendations on how to fix the FEC’s problems and bring its computer systems in line with specific National Institute of Standards and Technology computer security protocols.
In denying the Center for Public Integrity’s Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of the study, the FEC primarily cited the “deliberative process privilege” in federal law, which is designed to “prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.”
Washington Examiner: Is this woman the new Lois Lerner?
Rudy Takala
They take special aim at the commission’s Democratic chairwoman, Ann Ravel, who also served as chairwoman of California’s equivalent to the FEC, the Fair Political Practices Commission, before coming to Washington in 2013. Ravel has lambasted the commission as “dysfunctional” because votes on enforcement issues have often resulted in ties, and she has said the commission should go beyond its role of enforcing election laws by doing more to get women and minorities elected to political office. She has complained that super PACs are “95 percent run by white men,” and that as a result, “the people who get the money are generally also white men.”
Lawrence Lessig
Los Angeles Times: Larry Lessig’s latest long shot: A presidential campaign in 2016?
Cathleen Decker
Campaign promises to serve only one term always seem a little daffy. And promises to serve less than a term, after all the trouble of getting there? Daffy doesn’t cover it.
But that is precisely what Lessig is vowing, were he to destroy precedent and get himself elected in the first place.
“I think the only way to have a strong enough mandate is to make clear I will be there for one reason,” he said in an interview. Were he a traditional candidate, he said, he’d have to grind out positions and “talk about 10 to 12 issues.”
With attention on them, “the hardest thing we have to do is what we wouldn’t accomplish,” he said. Ergo, he would “sacrifice the full presidential term.”
Citizens United
Constitution Daily: How presidential candidates want to change the Constitution
NCC Staff
As usual, the Constitution is getting a lot of debate as the presidential campaign season starts, and for the 2016 election, more than a few candidates want some new constitutional amendments.
For example, the standing of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a current debate topic among Republican candidates, while an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s campaign financing decision is popular among Democrats…
That sounds like a lot of constitutional change in a short period of time, but with the very high bar set by the Constitution for amendments, these efforts face long odds of immediate success.
Candidates and Campaigns
Atlantic: Maybe This Time Really Is Different
Norm Ornstein
The financing, of course, raises point four: We are in a brave new world of campaign finance, where no one candidate can swamp the others by dominating the money race. When establishment nemesis Ted Cruz announced his campaign, he had $38 million in “independent” funds within a week, $36 million of it from four donors. There is likely more where that came from. Some candidates may not find any sugar daddies, or may find that their billionaires are fickle at the first sign of weakness. But far more candidates than usual will have the financial wherewithal to stick around—and the more candidates stick around, the less likely that any single one will pull into a commanding lead…
Christian Science Monitor: What the ‘Deez Nuts’ candidacy says about the state of US democracy
Sara Aridi
But all jokes aside, Olson’s comedic bid comes from some sincere concerns, mainly his frustration with the front-runners and his desire to “break the two-party system.” And while he may have no chance of winning, support for his campaign shows that many other Americans are also seeking an alternative to the two main parties.
“You could call [the third party candidate] anything and they would get their 7% or 8%,” Jim Williams, a polling analyst at PPP who conducted the North Carolina poll, told The Guardian.
“I really didn’t want to see Clinton, Bush, or Trump in the White House,” Olson told Rolling Stone magazine, “so I guess I’m just trying to put up a fight.”
The States
Arizona Republic: Michele Reagan to elections panel: ‘Tread lightly’ on dark money rules
Mary Jo Pitzl
The way the commission is trying to do that would set a precedent that she called “extremely troubling.”
Reagan argues the commission has no authority to force political committees to file campaign reports, something that would require naming donors.
But commission chairman Thomas Koester said part of the duties voters gave the commission when they approved its creation in 1998 was to do voter education — and that includes shedding light on campaigns and who is funding them.
KPAX Missoula: Motl: Don’t bypass political contribution limits by giving to parties
Sanjay Talwani
So, who decides whether contributions benefit the party or the candidate?
Such questions are often settled with an opinion from the commissioner on a specific case, or by an investigation following a complaint. Motl said his office expects to clear its docket of complaints related to the 2012 and 2014 campaigns by the end of the year, promising quick response on questions and complaints in 2016.
MT Sen. Doug Kary (R-Billings) said that still leaves a lot of discretion to the commissioner.
“Everything boils down to the Commissioner making a decision on what his thoughts are,” he said. “Versus – anybody can go and read it and understand it. We’re allowing it to be interpreted.”
